PDA

View Full Version : Chik-fil-A



TheLeviathan
08-01-2012, 07:26 PM
So now we revoke business licenses when our politics disagree?

Seriously, how long until the lefties and righties start killing each other in the streets? This is so f-ing stupid.

Badsmerf
08-01-2012, 09:19 PM
The stupidity of the whole issue boggles my mind.

flpmagikat
08-03-2012, 02:13 PM
As far as I know they are still in business, so, what?

Fatt Crapps
08-03-2012, 02:38 PM
What's all this crap I keep hearing about people wanting equal rights?

Is it really that big of a deal?

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-03-2012, 04:26 PM
There are two groups of people who look like idiots on this:

1. Politicians trying to use this to keep Chic Fil A out of cities and states- Just shut up and find something more important to do. If you want to keep out an evil company then stop letting them put up Walmarts every 2 miles and driving out tons of other businesses. It's fast food join run by idiots, if they want to build in your city let them. If people want to boycott it and they go out of business in your city then let that happen as well.

2. The only one who looks worse then some of the polticians are the brain dead yokels who decided to pilgrimage out to Chic Fil A the other day for the Chic Fil A appreciation day. If you are following anything Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin supports at this point you are the definition of a moron. Gay marriage is well on its way in this country, so people better just get used to it if they don't like it. Eating a 3000 calorie lunch on August 1st isn't going to change that. You just spent 2-3 hours waiting on a fast food chicken sandwich!

Personally I haven't eaten at a Chic Fil A in years, not bc of this, but because fast food in general is pretty awful for you. It has also been known for years that the CEO throws millions each year at anti gay marriage bills, groups etc. I am totally behind people "boycotting" it though, in fact I am for people boycotting any chain fast food joint.

IMO the "debate" about Gay Marriage is stupid to begin with, how anyone can be against it in this day of age is just mind boggling to me, but if there is a debate to be had about it, it shouldn't be centered around some fast food chicken joint and there crazy rich baptist CEO.

TheLeviathan
08-03-2012, 05:43 PM
While not all of that post I endorse - I do endorse the core ideas by Dave. The lefts resction with the licenses was ridiculous ad was the christian rights response.

fatbeer
08-03-2012, 06:11 PM
This is about the right giving the middle finger to the lefts proposed boycott. Of course it's time for gay marriage to be legal, the older generation on the right doesn't get that, but this is about so much more then one issue at this point. This is about saying were not only going to vote you jerks out of office in 96 days, but were gonna show you how powerful we can be just in case there is any confusion about what the election results mean. This is our country not Obama's not the media's not the so called moderates who are afraid to stand for something, and not the easily manipulated fools who will accept whatever some sports talk radio host says about politics. If the old people want to make gay marriage part of their fight fine, but they will not get in the way of us taking our country back.

By the way I know Obama said he supports gay marriage after Biden let his opinion slip, whats the president done to back up that lie? He opposes gay marriage more then any 6th district Republican.

drjim
08-03-2012, 07:26 PM
This is about the right giving the middle finger to the lefts proposed boycott. Of course it's time for gay marriage to be legal, the older generation on the right doesn't get that, but this is about so much more then one issue at this point. This is about saying were not only going to vote you jerks out of office in 96 days, but were gonna show you how powerful we can be just in case there is any confusion about what the election results mean. This is our country not Obama's not the media's not the so called moderates who are afraid to stand for something, and not the easily manipulated fools who will accept whatever some sports talk radio host says about politics. If the old people want to make gay marriage part of their fight fine, but they will not get in the way of us taking our country back.

By the way I know Obama said he supports gay marriage after Biden let his opinion slip, whats the president done to back up that lie? He opposes gay marriage more then any 6th district Republican.

This is awesome on too many levels.

flpmagikat
08-03-2012, 07:31 PM
This is about the right giving the middle finger to the lefts proposed boycott. Of course it's time for gay marriage to be legal, the older generation on the right doesn't get that, but this is about so much more then one issue at this point. This is about saying were not only going to vote you jerks out of office in 96 days, but were gonna show you how powerful we can be just in case there is any confusion about what the election results mean. This is our country not Obama's not the media's not the so called moderates who are afraid to stand for something, and not the easily manipulated fools who will accept whatever some sports talk radio host says about politics. If the old people want to make gay marriage part of their fight fine, but they will not get in the way of us taking our country back.

By the way I know Obama said he supports gay marriage after Biden let his opinion slip, whats the president done to back up that lie? He opposes gay marriage more then any 6th district Republican.

Do you really believe this? Any of it?

TheLeviathan
08-03-2012, 07:35 PM
A we weak "moderates" how dare we not go blindly one way or the other! You know, despite what the blubbering walrus might say - you can have a strong opinion that falls between right and left-wing extremism. Shocking, I know.

That said, it is true that the Democrats are just vote pandering with gay marriage. It just bothers me that they are wielding the government's powers against people who have differing opinions on gay marriage. I don't think there has been adequate criticism of that abhorrent move.

DJSim22
08-03-2012, 07:40 PM
The whole issue is ridiculous. And making this fuss probably only helps Chick-Fil-A. I personally believe gay marraige should be legal, but the reaction is embarrasing. Of couse the right has to then react to the left's reaction to make themselves look just as foolish.

As an independent, I as usual, shake my head at both sides wondering if they will tackle more important matters or if they will just grandstand to their bases hoping to get one more vote.

flpmagikat
08-03-2012, 07:54 PM
A we weak "moderates" how dare we not go blindly one way or the other! You know, despite what the blubbering walrus might say - you can have a strong opinion that falls between right and left-wing extremism. Shocking, I know.

That said, it is true that the Democrats are just vote pandering with gay marriage. It just bothers me that they are wielding the government's powers against people who have differing opinions on gay marriage. I don't think there has been adequate criticism of that abhorrent move.

What, pandering to the people who believe in equal rights? Pandering to the people who think being a bigot makes you kinda a bad person? I really dont care why obama or any democrat supports gay marriage, they arent wasting their breath demonizing it.

TheLeviathan
08-03-2012, 08:32 PM
What, pandering to the people who believe in equal rights? Pandering to the people who think being a bigot makes you kinda a bad person? I really dont care why obama or any democrat supports gay marriage, they arent wasting their breath demonizing it.

I believe they're pandering to it because many of them don't actually want gay marriage allowed.

And, again I'll say this, no one has a right to be married. Straight, gay, or otherwise. We could make some serious progress allowing gay marriage if we'd stop talking about it in such obnoxiously stupid terms (traditional vs. rights).

TheLeviathan
08-03-2012, 08:33 PM
The whole issue is ridiculous. And making this fuss probably only helps Chick-Fil-A. I personally believe gay marraige should be legal, but the reaction is embarrasing. Of couse the right has to then react to the left's reaction to make themselves look just as foolish.

As an independent, I as usual, shake my head at both sides wondering if they will tackle more important matters or if they will just grandstand to their bases hoping to get one more vote.

Well said.

flpmagikat
08-03-2012, 09:09 PM
I honestly think most people dont give a damn if gay people call themselves married. Some folks on the right and less on the left get all up in arms about what constitutes a marriage. I prefer the democrats support of the matter, even if it just comes in the form of apathy. Marriage isnt a right, but to entitle some citizens to certain right because they happened to have been born a certain way is discrimination.

TheLeviathan
08-03-2012, 09:47 PM
I honestly think most people dont give a damn if gay people call themselves married. Some folks on the right and less on the left get all up in arms about what constitutes a marriage. I prefer the democrats support of the matter, even if it just comes in the form of apathy. Marriage isnt a right, but to entitle some citizens to certain right because they happened to have been born a certain way is discrimination.

We discriminate all the time when we grant licenses. Discrimination isn't the problem - it's that it's groundless, stupid reasons for it that are the problem.

Badsmerf
08-03-2012, 10:46 PM
Really Lev? Its pretty funny lately we've had a few topics that I side with the left on... Anyway, saying discrimination isn't apart of this is a reach. Being married has benefits in this country, mostly tax benefits. When anyone specifies that one group (man and woman) can be married and another group (man and man or woman and woman) cannot, you are discriminating and not giving equal rights to all groups. I could care less about the church and who can be married under God, we are just talking being married by law. I don't see why its that complicated actually. I don't understand the anti-gay position at all. This doesn't effect them other than give them a right that others aren't granted.

TheLeviathan
08-03-2012, 11:02 PM
Really Lev? Its pretty funny lately we've had a few topics that I side with the left on... Anyway, saying discrimination isn't apart of this is a reach. Being married has benefits in this country, mostly tax benefits. When anyone specifies that one group (man and woman) can be married and another group (man and man or woman and woman) cannot, you are discriminating and not giving equal rights to all groups. I could care less about the church and who can be married under God, we are just talking being married by law. I don't see why its that complicated actually. I don't understand the anti-gay position at all. This doesn't effect them other than give them a right that others aren't granted.

We don't give equal rights to all groups when it comes to licenses because a license is only intended to go to some, not all. From a legal/government point of view we aren't discriminating against 14 year olds because we don't let them drive. Or against the illiterate because we don't license them to teach. Or against the blind to drive school buses.

I do agree that the people opposed to gay marriage are doing it out of bigotry, it just irks me to hear that we are denying people "rights". A license is not something you have a "right" to.

flpmagikat
08-03-2012, 11:10 PM
Last weekend, I went to one of my best friends weddings. That day, I witnessed a smile ive never seen before on not only his, but his wife and all their families faces. I went with a male date who I have no intentions of marrying. I cant really consider the option, as it isnt legal in this state and some politicians are working to make sure that it never happens based on their religous views. There's a fair chance Joe Biden and Barack Obama dont particularly like what I do, but ill take their Fairweather support over the hate that I recieve from those on the other side. I know you're more libertarian than anything, but being a centrist doesnt mean both sides are equal.

TheLeviathan
08-03-2012, 11:14 PM
but ill take their Fairweather support over the hate that I recieve from those on the other side. I know you're more libertarian than anything, but being a centrist doesnt mean both sides are equal.

Very true, didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Though I would argue that fairweather support has a good deal to do with why so little progress has been made. There isn't much courage coming from that side of the aisle, though clearly far less bigotry. The "defense of marriage" stuff is motivated by hate and bigotry, so you're right that the other side of coin has been far worse.

flpmagikat
08-03-2012, 11:21 PM
Our current president repealed dont ask dont tell. Like I said, being a centrist doesnt mean one side isnt wrong.

PseudoSABR
08-04-2012, 02:34 AM
The pandering is in the direction of being squeamish about gay marriage. I'm sure Obama and Biden have believed that the gov't should be granting marriage licences to same-sex couples for decades. It's common sense from a classic liberal point of view. There's really no moderate position on this. Part of the problem is the fight isn't just a legal one, it's a cultural one. Gay couples want not only the legal rights of marriage, but also the public sanctity of their individual gods and cultural recognition at large, which is totally human and legitimate. The fight isn't about granting gay couples marriage licences it's about preventing gay couples from getting them. The whether marriage-is-a-right argument is disingenuous, foolhardy moderation. Whether the government gives out marriage licences or dog licences, it's the intervention to prevent that disrupts the regular flow of public life, not vise versa. It's no coincidence that those who state gay marriage should be a non-issue are those not affected by it.

What's so damn irritating about the Right's fight on this issue is their claim to family values. Seemingly, they'd rather have crackhead single parent homes (they probably believe in Jesus) than stable gay coupled families. It's absurd and really morally bankrupt.

Chik-Fil-A might get publicity for a short time, but really, this kind publicity tarnishes the brand after its out of the news cycle. Would I want to be franchise owner of a Chik-Fil-A in a gentrified neighborhood? No. Maybe Chik-Fil-A will gain popularity among white suburbs, but the entrenchment of KFC, etc, leads me to believe, as far as business, this is self-headbutt-dumb move.

I find it harder to believe that all of us don't occupy a world where heterosexuals become close to people who are homosexual and who take same-sex partners, and that those heterosexuals wouldn't want what their gay friends/family want for themselves, that they wouldn't be willing to fight for such a basic recognition on their behalf.

As far as I'm concerned, being American is about fighting for what is right, in spite of what tradition or the law might say (a founding principle, I think).

flpmagikat
08-04-2012, 03:43 AM
I dont know that I agree with you pseudo; I dont believe that either our president or VP have considered the idea of same sex marriage over their careers. However I dont doubt their sincerity on the matter now, isnt that the idea of progrossesivism? I am sure they are counting votes at the same time. Every politician does. And the more national you are the more you concede.

PseudoSABR
08-04-2012, 04:16 AM
I dont know that I agree with you pseudo; I dont believe that either our president or VP have considered the idea of same sex marriage over their careers. However I dont doubt their sincerity on the matter now, isnt that the idea of progrossesivism? I am sure they are counting votes at the same time. Every politician does. And the more national you are the more you concede.I think political liberals must cow to the center and acquiesce to religious norms to get elected. I just think it wasn't politically favorable for Democrats to support a position that would seem radical (even if it's really a natural progression of civil rights). I think progressive movements result not from people changing their mind, but rather people entering a culture that makes it more comfortable to be publicly progressive. Young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, those who oppose it will die out; whether anyone else changes their minds, it's simply a matter of time for gay marriage to be recognized nationally.

I do agree, that as a point of policy Obama and Biden would never evoke gay marriage, but I also think that they'd only oppose it for political reasons, not because of their principles.

fatbeer
08-04-2012, 06:28 AM
Which politicians on the left are actually supporting gay Marriage, because to me it seems like it's just Gavin Newsome. I'll give Biden credit to because I think his support was his actual opinion and not a political play but he has about the same amount of political power as my dog in his current position. The younger generation on the right in many cases was vocal in supporting gay marriage including John kriesel. Until the ballot amendment is leagalize it or state government votes on it I don't really care about the issue. The amendment in Minnesota will pass, but really will not change anything in a meaningful way it will simply mean instead of 52% supporting it we're still sitting closer to 40%

TheLeviathan
08-04-2012, 08:08 AM
The whether marriage-is-a-right argument is disingenuous, foolhardy moderation. Whether the government gives out marriage licences or dog licences, it's the intervention to prevent that disrupts the regular flow of public life, not vise versa. It's no coincidence that those who state gay marriage should be a non-issue are those not affected by it.

How is being accurate disingenuous? Marriage isn't a right. Nothing that we have a "right" to is licensed by the friggin county we live in. (Except for more extreme versions of fundamental rights, like conceal and carry. But even then no one is licensing you to have a rifle in your home)

The rest of this paragraph doesn't make much sense. The value of recognizing a license for what it is (read: NOT A RIGHT) is that it shifts the conversation to practical questions rather than religious nonsense. Then we ask - do gay couples meet the qualifications for a license as much as hetero couples? The answer to those questions, in virtually every fair and meaningful study done, is yes. Licenses aren't meant to inhibit the rights of others, they are meant to enforce the function of the license. There is a reason not everyone is licensed to drive, teach, practice psychology, drive a semi, or anything else you want to list. Licenses "give permission". Rights are, by their very nature, ours without permission.

The issue gets confused (understandably, but no less wrongly) here - you have a right to socialize with whom you choose. The license is another level of this socialization that requires permission - and rightfully so. Society has a vested interest in only encouraging positive social relationships for economic and child rearing purposes. Gay couples meet those interests now and if we focus the conversation there (rather than playing in the ballfield that favors the wackos, see: non-empirical) than we have a chance to change this.

But good god lefties - not everything is a damn right, get off of that nonsense.

PseudoSABR
08-04-2012, 02:23 PM
No one's saying it's a right. However, it's unethical, imho, to deny privileges to some people based on sexual preferences. I suppose the gov't doesn't HAVE to grant dog licences to Latinos, but it'd be pretty craptastic if they didn't.

TheLeviathan
08-04-2012, 05:23 PM
No one's saying it's a right. However, it's unethical, imho, to deny privileges to some people based on sexual preferences. I suppose the gov't doesn't HAVE to grant dog licences to Latinos, but it'd be pretty craptastic if they didn't.

Psued, all you have to do is look at this thread to see that it is being talked about constantly on this issue. Discrimination happens all the time in the law, the key is that it can pass the Equal Protection Clause. Frankly, homosexual couples were rightly discriminated against from marriage licenses for a long time - they weren't positive environments (or environments at all) for raising children or stable relationships. That wasn't always their doing of course, but it was the truth. But those reasons have change and THAT is the grounds you fight this issue on because it completely diffuses all of the nonsensical attacks from the right.

When you do that it concentrates the argument on the EP Clause. So now you focus on the arguments that used to be opposed to gay marriage which have changed. All of the arguments for why homosexual couples would be unfit for marriage recognition (stable partnerships, economic partnership, child rearing) are extinct. Studies show homosexual partners are just as good as hetero couples on all of these fronts. I completely agree that we should be making the moral appeal as well, but not in terms of "rights". More in terms of what is "right" to do in how to treat another human being. But that is a separate and lesser campaign then this. People forget that many of the major steps forward in civil rights were by judges and the system of law recognizing the injustice. That forced the conversation to moral grounds but with the force of law behind the right cause. And since we are talking about a legal privilege - battling it in court makes SO much more sense than on the ground the religious whackos decide.

biggentleben
08-04-2012, 09:44 PM
From a legal/government point of view we aren't discriminating against 14 year olds because we don't let them drive.

Um, some states allow 14 year-olds full driving licences. Not an argument on the point, just stating fact.

TheLeviathan
08-04-2012, 10:38 PM
Um, some states allow 14 year-olds full driving licences. Not an argument on the point, just stating fact.

Then pick a different age. Try 11. Or many 91 year olds. The point was we discriminate all the time.

Jocko87
08-05-2012, 07:16 PM
What, pandering to the people who believe in equal rights? Pandering to the people who think being a bigot makes you kinda a bad person? I really dont care why obama or any democrat supports gay marriage, they arent wasting their breath demonizing it.

Pandering is pandering and you really should care if your politicians are doing it. The issue they pander on is irrelevant. How will you know what they believe if they spend all their time pandering?

fatbeer
08-05-2012, 09:36 PM
Telling someone what they want to hear is great if it's what you actually believe, but if I'm fighting for my rights I'm thankful that I know where a Michele Bachmann stands as opposed to Al Franken Barack Obama and Keith Ellison who will tell you what you want to hear but in reality have never lifted a finger for the cause. The reality is the Democrats wish this issue didn't exist because many of them agree with Michele Bachmann on the issue.

drjim
08-05-2012, 10:08 PM
Telling someone what they want to hear is great if it's what you actually believe, but if I'm fighting for my rights I'm thankful that I know where a Michele Bachmann stands as opposed to Al Franken Barack Obama and Keith Ellison who will tell you what you want to hear but in reality have never lifted a finger for the cause. The reality is the Democrats wish this issue didn't exist because many of them agree with Michele Bachmann on the issue.

I think you have it completely backwards. I imagine virtually all Democrats have no problem with gay marriage but can't say it too loudly because public opinion hasn't reached a tipping point as of yet.

I imagine Bachmann is sincere in her beliefs, but many Republicans are much more cynical about this, as they personally are probably in favor of (or at least indifferent about) gay marriage, but play up their opposition to play to the worst impulses of their base.

So, as in so many political debates of our time, we have a titanic clash of the gutless vs the cynical. Good times.

PseudoSABR
08-06-2012, 01:48 PM
So, as in so many political debates of our time, we have a titanic clash of the gutless vs the cynical. Good times.;)..

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-06-2012, 10:48 PM
I think you have it completely backwards. I imagine virtually all Democrats have no problem with gay marriage but can't say it too loudly because public opinion hasn't reached a tipping point as of yet.

I imagine Bachmann is sincere in her beliefs, but many Republicans are much more cynical about this, as they personally are probably in favor of (or at least indifferent about) gay marriage, but play up their opposition to play to the worst impulses of their base.

So, as in so many political debates of our time, we have a titanic clash of the gutless vs the cynical. Good times.

I am going to steal this entire thing. Thank you in advance!

glunn
08-07-2012, 02:58 AM
What if the owner of the White Sox bought Chick-fil-A? Would that dampen anyone's taste for this restaurant?

Brock Beauchamp
08-07-2012, 07:59 AM
Telling someone what they want to hear is great if it's what you actually believe, but if I'm fighting for my rights I'm thankful that I know where a Michele Bachmann stands as opposed to Al Franken Barack Obama and Keith Ellison who will tell you what you want to hear but in reality have never lifted a finger for the cause. The reality is the Democrats wish this issue didn't exist because many of them agree with Michele Bachmann on the issue.

Nobody in their right mind agrees with Michele Bachmann on much of anything. Even when she has a valid point, it's so overwhelmed by crazytalk that the salient point is lost in a sea of noise.

I'm ashamed that Minnesota continues to elect her. She's an embarrassment to the state.

TheLeviathan
08-07-2012, 10:39 AM
Yeah, she's bat-dung crazy.

fatbeer
08-07-2012, 06:06 PM
Bachmann is a mouth piece for the people of her district, but also very much a creation of the media. You have to listen to Rightwing radio to hear the same sort of things from the left, but when you put together selective quotes and stories from Obama Pelosi or Ried they easily become nutjob clueless idiots too. In the end you need to be able to see through all this and make a selection based on things that actually matter. Someone in Delaware thinking less of your state or district will never matter, just as someone in North Carolina wondering how the hell Keith Ellison got elected will never matter.

Brock Beauchamp
08-07-2012, 07:32 PM
Bachmann is a mouth piece for the people of her district, but also very much a creation of the media. You have to listen to Rightwing radio to hear the same sort of things from the left, but when you put together selective quotes and stories from Obama Pelosi or Ried they easily become nutjob clueless idiots too. In the end you need to be able to see through all this and make a selection based on things that actually matter. Someone in Delaware thinking less of your state or district will never matter, just as someone in North Carolina wondering how the hell Keith Ellison got elected will never matter.

No way can you compare Obama and Bachmann. Michele is a fringe, right wing nutjob. She's an embarrassment to Congress and given the average Congress, that's really sayin' something. Hell, her own party just called her out for implying there were Al Queda ties to Hilary's assistant. If the rest of the GOP is backpedaling on a remark you made toward Hilary Clinton, you know you've gone completely off the deep end.

Her Politifact page would be hilarious if it wasn't so damned sad. The woman flat-out lies as often as she can get away with it (more often, actually) to rile up her base. She's the very definition of a demagogue.

She's an awful, terrible, horrible woman and I have little respect for anyone who votes for her. I can handle people who disagree with me on various topics but if your main tools to convince people you're right are lies, fire, and brimstone, I'm not going to have a lick of respect for you or your constituency.

In a nutshell, Bachmann is the pure embodiment of everything that is wrong with American politics. And I'm not even a ****ing Democrat.

biggentleben
08-07-2012, 09:51 PM
No way can you compare Obama and Bachmann. Michele is a fringe, right wing nutjob. She's an embarrassment to Congress and given the average Congress, that's really sayin' something. Hell, her own party just called her out for implying there were Al Queda ties to Hilary's assistant. If the rest of the GOP is backpedaling on a remark you made toward Hilary Clinton, you know you've gone completely off the deep end.

Her Politifact page would be hilarious if it wasn't so damned sad. The woman flat-out lies as often as she can get away with it (more often, actually) to rile up her base. She's the very definition of a demagogue.

She's an awful, terrible, horrible woman and I have little respect for anyone who votes for her. I can handle people who disagree with me on various topics but if your main tools to convince people you're right are lies, fire, and brimstone, I'm not going to have a lick of respect for you or your constituency.

In a nutshell, Bachmann is the pure embodiment of everything that is wrong with American politics. And I'm not even a ****ing Democrat.

Well done, sir.

fatbeer
08-07-2012, 10:06 PM
Meanwhile on the left wing nobody is bothered by Harry Ried, I guess when the entire party is fringe nutjobs nobody notices. Meanwhile John McCain is a hero to the left except for a couple months in 2008 when he was pure evil, and wanted to eat your babies.

Brock Beauchamp
08-08-2012, 07:03 AM
Meanwhile on the left wing nobody is bothered by Harry Ried, I guess when the entire party is fringe nutjobs nobody notices. Meanwhile John McCain is a hero to the left except for a couple months in 2008 when he was pure evil, and wanted to eat your babies.

McCain disgusted not only the left but also parts of the right by spending most of 2006-2008 pandering to the religious base, something he never did before and hasn't done since the election. It's not surprising that a few of us found that distasteful from a man who was labeled "maverick" for most of his career.

Harry Reid is an ass. I'll just leave it at that.

diehardtwinsfan
08-15-2012, 12:22 PM
I cannot believe just how much press this subject has gotten and how nauseating it has become, and just how stupid everyone seems to be on the issue. The overreactions of both the left and the right sound like a bunch of petulant little kids who desparately need their *** beaten so hard that they can no longer sit down... Just a few things:

1) No one, and I mean no one looks at the whole discussion. These guys spent most of that conversation speaking about divorce and how they were proud to be married to the same person their entire life. The right loves to take a stand on gay marriage, but never talks about divorce (which has far more to do with teh sanctity of marriage I'd add)... And that has more to do with the fact that the church's divorce rate is no different (if not sligly higher) than outside the church, and half of their congregation would get up and leave if they said something.

2) Marriage licenses, ironically, were setup to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. I find it amusing that small government conservatives are suddenly in favor of government laws. This is a church issue, and it belongs there. Give it back to the churches.

3) Not all of it is simply bigotry.. I'm a Christian, though I hesitate to call myself conservative any more because my libertarian views no longer seem to mesh with what is now defined as "conservative" I think homosexuality is wrong, and I think homosexual marriage is wrong. That's pretty clear biblically, but it has absolutely nothing to do with how I interact with those homosexuals that I know (and I have had gay friends over the course of my life). I also believe that two homosexuals in a free country are free to do something like this so long as they are not violating the freedoms of others.... and unlike more potent issues like abortion (where you can argue that the unborn child is alive), two dudes getting married poses absolutely no threats to my freedoms or the freedoms of anyone else in this country... you might (and I mean might) be able to make a case against raising children, but that's a completely different case and not an easy one to make.

4) So much of this is nothing but pandering, and it's exactly what is wrong with this country. We are spending trillions of dollars a year on wars, special interest, welfare, and many other things that we cannot afford and have racked up debt ratios that would render private corporations insolvent. The economy is in shambles and the people that put it there continue to run free. The only way we've been able to make it work is by diluting the value of the currency we have (effectively slowly robbing people of their incomes) and are only a few years behind the Europeans with the mess they currently have and we are fighting over this? One of my former congressmen (steve Latourette) just resigend a couple of weeks ago, because as he put it, things were so polarized that the leaders could simply throw out a controversy and watch the entire thing fall apart into right and left taking shots at each other. Moderates (or libertarians such as myself) get shut out of the debate alltogether, even though both sides have some very clear flaws in their stances.

TheLeviathan
08-15-2012, 02:11 PM
2) Marriage licenses, ironically, were setup to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. I find it amusing that small government conservatives are suddenly in favor of government laws. This is a church issue, and it belongs there. Give it back to the churches.

I agreed with most of what you said - I take some issue here. The government/society has an interest in promoting stable social relationships. If it was simply handed over to the churches it would severely complicate the state's ability to incentivize the relationships that are strong economically and for child-rearing.

I say let churches decide what they want to recognize as marriage, but in terms of the government churches shouldn't be involved in any way, shape, or form. They are ceremonial - the license has a pragmatic function.

diehardtwinsfan
08-15-2012, 08:23 PM
2) Marriage licenses, ironically, were setup to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. I find it amusing that small government conservatives are suddenly in favor of government laws. This is a church issue, and it belongs there. Give it back to the churches.

I agreed with most of what you said - I take some issue here. The government/society has an interest in promoting stable social relationships. If it was simply handed over to the churches it would severely complicate the state's ability to incentivize the relationships that are strong economically and for child-rearing.

I say let churches decide what they want to recognize as marriage, but in terms of the government churches shouldn't be involved in any way, shape, or form. They are ceremonial - the license has a pragmatic function.

I was addressing this more or less in terms of "the way it used to be." George Washington didn't need a license for marriage. Those were evented at later times to help enforce Jim Crow laws. I'd agree that with divorce the way it is today, there needs to be some sort of legal contract, though personally I don't think the church needs to (nor should it) recognize government licenses of marriage.

As it is right now, I don't think the state "incentivizes relationships that are strong economically and for child-rearing." If anything, it does the opposite. Finances are the number reason why people divorce and with oppressive taxes and inflation that erodes your wealth, families are under more financial pressure now than they ever were. 50 years ago, you didn't need both parents to work. Now, it's a matter of necessity for most families as one person cannot earn enough to keep up. Likewise, the government has made divorce very, very easy, and if encouraging strong relationships was its goal, then divorce should be difficult to do. I'm not saying the church has done a good job of it either, but if you lowered taxes and ended inflation, there would be a measurable drop in divorce rates in this country.

I think in your last statement we essentially are saying the same thing, though I don't consider the church marriage ceremonial. It's a vow before God. I get that if you do not believe in God, this is not necessary, but what God has joined, no man should split apart. The church as a whole has dropped the ball on this one, and I'd argue that it plays a much bigger role in the degredation of the family and the assault on the sanctity of marriage than homosexual marriage every will. 50% of the population is divorced, and by some statistics, that rate is slightly higher in the church. I'm rather dismayed that my brothers and sisters in Christ will stand up fervently against homosexuality while meekly retreating on this subject. Taking a stand here would empty the most churches, leaving many of them up to foreclosure... so they retreat. My general belief here is that I could care less if gays marry, but my first ammendment says that as a member of the church, I do not have to recongize it or perform the ceremonies. To me, this compromise would work for about 90% of the people on each side (though the vocal 10% on each side would certainly disagree)...

TheLeviathan
08-15-2012, 08:39 PM
To me, this compromise would work for about 90% of the people on each side (though the vocal 10% on each side would certainly disagree)...

You would hope, but unfortunately I don't think it will for many. I'm not sure why so many people care about making sure others suffer.

Ultima Ratio
08-15-2012, 09:20 PM
I saw the new posts thinking you all were remarking on today's domestic terrorism (shooting) at the Family Research Council, where the shooter carried a Chik-fil-a bag and opened fire in the name of tolerance -- for homosexual marriage. That Chik-fil-a is everywhere these days.

TheLeviathan
08-15-2012, 09:24 PM
I saw the new posts thinking you all were remarking on today's domestic terrorism (shooting) at the Family Research Council, where the shooter carried a Chik-fil-a bag and opened fire in the name of tolerance -- for homosexual marriage. That Chik-fil-a is everywhere these days.

Is this just a restatement of the news or are you making an implication about the issue with one whacko?

Ultima Ratio
08-15-2012, 09:30 PM
I saw the new posts thinking you all were remarking on today's domestic terrorism (shooting) at the Family Research Council, where the shooter carried a Chik-fil-a bag and opened fire in the name of tolerance -- for homosexual marriage. That Chik-fil-a is everywhere these days.

Is this just a restatement of the news or are you making an implication about the issue with one whacko?

Just thought that this would be what you all were posting about, and surprised to find you weren't given today's events. Just want to make sure anyone who checks in on this knows that it happened as it was not widely covered by major news networks. If the guy had brought in a Burger King bag I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of beginning a thread here on the shooter at all, just that this shooter happened to be politically motivated, unlike other recent and past shootings, and Chik-fil-a appears to be at the center of those motivations, and here I already knew a chik-fil-a thread was rolling... so there you have all the permutations. :)

PseudoSABR
08-15-2012, 11:00 PM
I saw the new posts thinking you all were remarking on today's domestic terrorism (shooting) at the Family Research Council, where the shooter carried a Chik-fil-a bag and opened fire in the name of tolerance -- for homosexual marriage. That Chik-fil-a is everywhere these days.

Is this just a restatement of the news or are you making an implication about the issue with one whacko?

Just thought that this would be what you all were posting about, and surprised to find you weren't given today's events. Just want to make sure anyone who checks in on this knows that it happened as it was not widely covered by major news networks. If the guy had brought in a Burger King bag I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of beginning a thread here on the shooter at all, just that this shooter happened to be politically motivated, unlike other recent and past shootings, and Chik-fil-a appears to be at the center of those motivations, and here I already knew a chik-fil-a thread was rolling... so there you have all the permutations. :)Thank goodness you were here last week to put the shooting at the Sikh temple in perspective!

Extreme whackos on either side need not enter our thoughtful discourse. Seriously.

Ultima Ratio
08-15-2012, 11:09 PM
[/QUOTE]Thank goodness you were here last week to put the shooting at the Sikh temple in perspective![/QUOTE]

Like I said, had there already been a Sikhism thread going on that day....

And that event was widely reported. This one, not so much and that is why I made my comment, is that okay?

diehardtwinsfan
08-17-2012, 09:37 AM
Extreme whackos on either side need not enter our thoughtful discourse. Seriously.

wholeheartedly agree, but this is driving policy in this country. These extreme wackos are being used to justify destroying the 2nd ammendment, just as they are being used to spend trillions invading foreign nations (which ironically tends to create more of them). You cannot live your life based on what the extreme says/does.... but in this country, it seems to be acceptable.

Seth Stohs
08-18-2012, 08:00 AM
And people wonder why more and more people seem to care less and less about politics. It's Michele Bachman vs Nancy Pelosi. Both equally crazy on opposite sides of the table. I mean wasn't Pelosi the one who told her party to sign a bill and then read it later?

The Chik-fil-A thing was totally blown out of proportion. He expressed his opinion, an opinion probably roughly half of the country agrees with and half of the country disagrees with. However, he also said that his opinion does not get in the way of his company's policy on equal rights for hiring.

The politicians seemingly have to be far to the left or far to the right... and I would imagine that at least 80% of people are somewhere closer to the middle. I think that's what turns so many people off to it all.

PseudoSABR
08-18-2012, 01:31 PM
Seth, Pelosi might be a gun-ho Democrat (she was speaker of the house, dude); she's hardly as extreme as Michele Bachman. Maybe you should pay more attention.